Janet Wasko's "Challenging Disney Myths" essentially hates on Walt Disney's entire life and the Disney corporation. She disapproves of the enormous credit given to Disney for the production of Disney films and feels that Disney is a monopoly that holds too much influence over kids and adults worldwide. While she makes valid points, her evidence provided to support her claims are complete crap; this evidence tends to be either irrelevant or way too stretched to meet the argument. 

For instance, in her paragraph falsifying Walt Disney's portrayal as a "creative genius," she denounces Disney, asserting that Walt "relied on other artists and managers to accomplish the studio's work and to create 'Disney Art'" simply because people other than Disney contributed to the companies success (Wasko 241). I think it is a silly point, as it is ridiculous to say that Disney shouldn't receive credit for the companies success just because he didn't directly contribute to the art portion of the company He contributed in a variety of ways, for instance being a great businessman and being able to attract society to the visions he dreamed up. Wasko's argument is superficial in that she hints that Walt is undeserving of success because his abilities are not as prominent/flashy as the drawings and animations seen in Disney movies. In addition, Wasko implies that Disney is not the talented artist that he was known to be because he struggled to duplicate the famous Disney signature that society knew and loved. I personally feel this evidence sucks, as anyone may have difficulty reproducing a logo, especially over the course of a five second autograph. The struggle to duplicate art is not exclusive to Disney and the information does not enhance her challenging of Walt's abilities. Essentially, while there may be valid reasons as to why Disney does not deserve the overwhelming credit he has received, Wasko fails to provide them.

On the other hand, Wasko does provide good evidence supporting the negative influence of Disney movies on children. Drawing on the fact that most Disney heroines have beautiful faces, pleasing temperaments, tiny faces, and often are "barely alive" (like literally not awake), she illustrates how Disney inundates girls with these historical ideas of women having to rely on their appearances and be subservient to men in order to be considered a heroine (lol "historical," has this really gone away? I think not). Similarly, she challenges the idea that Disney movies are "unbiased" and "wholesome" with good examples, pointing to the Disney values of conservatism, ethnocentricity, cultural insensitivity, and superficiality that are recurring themes in Disney movies. 

I liked how Wasko addressed the control of Disney behind their products, characters and images and in "developing their reputation as a brand that process positive, wholesome, family and children's entertainment." Interestingly, despite the underlying stereotypes and somewhat negative messages present in Disney movies, it is still made possible to love Disney (LIKE I DO!!!!)

Long story short, she had some crappy points but some good ones too!

Peace Love Disney

Chandler